Cancellation of a Christian Speaker Leads to a Reconciliation Process

Earlier this year, Christian author Tony Campolo was canceled as a speaker at a national convention called Youth Congress ’85. Some of the event’s organizers were concerned about statements Campolo made in one of his books, statements some critics have called heretical.

Because Campolo is a well-known author and one of the most popular speakers on the evangelical circuit, CHRISTIANITY TODAY is publishing a three-part special report. Part I explores the controversy surrounding Campolo’s views, his cancellation from Youth Congress ’85, and a planned reconciliation process. In Part II, beginning on page 32, Campolo explains his beliefs in an interview with CHRISTIANITY TODAY Senior Editor Kenneth S. Kantzer and Associate Editor David Neff. In Part III, beginning on page 36, Kantzer puts the controversy into perspective.

The cancellation of a popular Christian speaker from a major youth convention has given rise to questions about heresy and just treatment. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the Christian Legal Society (CLS) has asked eight prominent evangelical leaders to serve as mediators.

CLS executive director Sam Ericsson said his group will “coordinate a process of reconciliation” between the canceled speaker, Eastern College sociology professor Tony Campolo, and some of his critics who have stated or implied that Campolo’s theology is heretical. Ericsson said most of the persons asked to serve as mediators expressed an interest but were awaiting details on what would be expected of them before making a commitment.

The controversy began earlier this year when a group of Evangelical Free Church pastors in Illinois raised a stir over Campolo. He had been scheduled to speak at Youth Congress ’85, a convention that brought more than 15,000 teenagers to Washington, D.C., in July (CT, Sept. 6, 1985, p. 44). The event was sponsored jointly by Campus Crusade for Christ and Youth for Christ (YFC).

The Illinois pastors informed Youth Congress organizers that they would prevent their young people from attending the convention unless Campolo was canceled as a speaker. Despite the objection of Youth for Christ, that request was granted.

Many close to the controversy, including Campolo, said it is likely that the conciliatory process being coordinated by CLS would include an examination of his theology. Campolo said it was his hope that the panel also would consider whether or not he was treated fairly.

“If I am found to be in error, I’m ready either to recant or to say that I don’t belong in the evangelical tradition anymore,” Campolo said. “I’m willing to put my reputation on the line. [Campus Crusade president] Bill Bright should be willing to do the same.”

Several sources close to the Campolo controversy suggested that his teachings on lifestyle were a factor in the decision to drop him from Youth Congress. Bright, however, called the lifestyle issue “peripheral,” and said the major concern was Campolo’s theology, as expressed in his 1983 book, A Reasonable Faith (Word).

Bright did not read the book before he made his decision to drop Campolo. But he said scholars at Campus Crusade’s International School of Theology had convinced him that there was enough objectionable material in the book to justify the move to cancel Campolo. Bright based his decision on a critique of Campolo’s book written by International School of Theology professor Randy Rodden.

The focal point of the controversy in A Reasonable Faith is Campolo’s development of the idea that Christ lives in all human beings, whether or not they are Christians. Campolo asserts in his book that he is not merely saying that all people reflect the image of God, but that the resurrected Jesus of history “actually is present” in each person.

In addition, Campolo raised eyebrows with such statements as “Jesus is God because he is fully human” and “Jesus is the only Savior, but not everybody who is being saved by Him is aware that He is the one who is doing the saving.” Some concluded that those statements implied universalism and an unevangelical, if not heretical, understanding of the nature of Christ. Bright said the decision to drop Campolo was made out of loyalty to supporters of Campus Crusade, who would be uncomfortable with those statements.

Jay Kesler, who until recently was YFC president, said Campolo’s book needs some clarification, but he called it “thoroughly orthodox.” In an interview with CHRISTIANITY TODAY, Kesler noted that Campolo “has challenged the American equation of upward mobility and success.” Kesler called Campolo “one of the few authentic prophets in our society,” adding, “If we get this fine on heresy, the skies will be lit With the burning bodies of Christians all over America.”

The decision to drop Campolo from Youth Congress ’85 was made about three months prior to the event. A convention press release stated that “because of recent concerns over current issues and disagreements regarding Tony Campolo being used as a speaker, and in an effort to keep unity in the Body of Christ, Bill Bright, [then YFC president] Jay Kesler, and Tony Campolo have unanimously agreed that Tony should not speak at Youth Congress ’85.”

A few months prior to the convention, Campolo flew to California to meet with Bright, Kesler, and others. Campolo said he understood that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss and clarify his theology. According to Bright, however, the decision already had been made to drop Campolo. Bright added that the decision could have been reversed if Campolo had provided a satisfactory explanation of his controversial views.

Campolo stressed that, in contradiction to the convention press release, he had not agreed to drop out as a Youth Congress speaker. “Before I left that meeting,” he said, “I made the statement, ‘Let it never be said that I have withdrawn from this conference voluntarily.’ ”

Campolo is one of the most well-traveled speakers on the evangelical circuit. He has appeared on James Dobson’s “Focus on the Family” radio program and has produced educational videos for Word, Inc., and the David C. Cook Publishing Company. Campolo’s boisterous style is marked by confrontation, hyperbole, and wit. Although he is in high demand as a speaker, many conservatives look askance at Campolo because of his perceived left-leaning political and economic views.

Kesler wrote a letter to those who had protested Campolo’s scheduled presence at Youth Congress ’85. In it, he explained that his agreement to drop Campolo was solely for the sake of unity. He wrote, “The representatives of Campus Crusade and I simply disagree on this issue.”

Neil Brohm was one of the Illinois pastors who protested Campolo’s scheduled appearance at Youth Congress. Of Campolo’s theology, Brohm said: “I don’t know if it would be heretical in the truest sense of the word, but it is clearly off base.”

Dan Rodden, executive director of the Caleb Campaign, a ministry to Christians in secular schools, charged that Campolo used “semantic mysticism” in developing his theology. Explaining, he said that Campolo gave new and unwarranted meaning to commonly accepted theological terms. (Dan Rodden is the brother of Randy Rodden, of Campus Crusade’s International School of Theology.)

As a result of the controversy, Campolo issued a clarification of his views wherein he states among other things that “persons become Christians only by surrendering their lives to Christ.”

He has defended his ideas and terminology as being necessary to make the gospel relevant to today’s world. “Evangelical Christianity is becoming intellectually sterile,” he said. “I’m worried that evangelical intellectuals will not say anything except the old phrases and the old worn out terminology that only causes people to smile on us benevolently.”

Campolo said he regards himself as a victim in what he called a “wave of religious McCarthyism.” He said his ministry and reputation have been damaged.

In his organization’s newsletter, Dan Rodden wrote an article called “Tony Campolo: a Great Evangelical Disaster.” In an adjacent drawing, Campolo is caricatured in witch’s garb, standing over a cauldron mixing humanism and Bible truth into a potion of “spiritual adultery.”

According to Campolo, packets of information critical of him have begun to show up in the offices of organizations that have scheduled him as a speaker. He said he suspected that the Illinois pastors who initiated the controversy are behind it.

However, both Brohm and Dan Rodden said they had no knowledge of this activity. “We are not saying that [Campolo] should be banned from speaking in America,” Rodden said. “We published [the article] to inform our … constituents.”

Brohm noted Campolo’s propensity for hyperbole and questioned how extensively the critical information is being circulated. He said he did not advocate a “search-and-destroy mission” against Campolo.

Such debate might surface during the planned reconciliation process. The CLS’s Ericsson said he hopes that process will begin later this month.

RANDY FRAME

Part II. A Conversation with Tony Campolo

The controversial author explains his beliefs.

Does Tony Campolo hold heretical views, as some of his critics have alleged? To help answer that question, CHRISTIANITY TODAY gave Campolo an opportunity to explain his beliefs. Senior Editor Kenneth S. Kantzer and Associate Editor David Neff interviewed Campolo for two hours. He answered questions about human sinfulness, salvation by grace through faith, substitutionary atonement, and the historicity of Adam and Eve with candor and clarity. An abridged version of the conversation follows.

On Theology And The Nature Of Truth:

You said in your book A Reasonable Faith: “Theologies come, theologies go, they briefly speak to the people of their times and then pass into insignificance.” What do you mean by that?

When we look at our theological systems and say, “This is the way things really are,” we are arrogant. Every theology is an attempt to get closer to the truth. No system tells the whole story. In the words of Paul, “We know in part, and we prophesy in part.”

We must look at theologies as the limited things they are: attempts of people, strapped by the limitations of the flesh, trying to grapple with that which is far beyond their comprehension. All theologies are hints, pointers, foretastes of the glorious truth that shall be fully revealed when we see him. Then we will know the truth in its fullness. And we will see how limited the most orthodox statements are.

Are there not statements that are true in all cultures and all times?

The Bible itself, which is inerrant, makes strong theological statements. It declares Jesus to be God. It declares human beings lost and in need of salvation. It states that Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins, and that there is salvation in no other. Scripture makes inerrant statements about ethics, so that there are certain things about our behavior that are not up for discussion.

There are enough strong, solid, theological statements in Scripture to leave very little room for compromise. Any person who denies the deity of Christ is not simply denying an interpretation of Scripture, he is denying the exact words of Scripture.

Two things, as I say in the book, keep us from relativity. First is the belief that the Holy Spirit is at work in the life of the church and leads us into all truth. Everyone who seeks, finds, because Jesus promised his Holy Spirit to help us search for truth.

Second is the body of believers. That body of believers has held certain truths and has interpreted the Scriptures in certain ways. I do not believe that any theologian can arbitrarily come along and say that 2000 years’ worth of the historical positions of the church is wrong.

If it can be demonstrated to me that my interpretation of Scripture contradicts the historical positions of Christianity through the ages, then I am ready to say, “Gee, I made a mistake.” I grow by recognizing my mistakes.

In both the introduction and epilogue of your book, you say that it is a trial balloon. Why did you try these ideas out in so public a fashion?

I wanted to write a theology that would not only make sense to the evangelical community of which I am a part, but would also make sense to its cultured despisers. The ultimate purpose of theology is evangelism. I want to take the gospel and state it in such a way that people in my time will say, “Aha, I see something of the truth of God. And I want to learn more and become a Christian.”

Has the criticism you have received caused you to rethink any of your positions?

Yes, many of them. First, I have come to realize that my use of Martin Buber was far too sweeping. The way I came across in my book was that somehow, if I did not have relationships with other people, I would not have a relationship with Christ. Obviously, that’s a very serious mistake.

Second, I think I would be more careful about my terminology. A lot of my brothers and sisters will not use words as I would like them to use words simply because I tell them, “This is what the word means.”

I have to do a lot more work on Christology. The criticism has called me back to historic positions of the church. I have another book coming out, but unfortunately I wrote most of it before the controversy.

A couple of your statements sound like liberation theology.

They do, don’t they? I’m sure that liberation theology has influenced me. But it certainly has not swept me off my feet. As I point out in my book, liberation theology fails in its hermeneutics.

The Holy Spirit is not only transcultural but transclass. To confine the interpretation of Scripture under the direction of the Holy Spirit to any one social class is as erroneous as confining the interpretation of Scripture to any ethnic group. God transcends all classes. Unfortunately, liberation theologians limit the concept of oppression to the economic and political realms. Jesus has come to deliver us from all forms of oppression.

You write that our images of God are created of the “collective imagination of our society.” Do you mean that there are no theological absolutes about God?

I point out that according to Emil Durkheim, images of God are created in the context of a culture. I then go on to say that God stands over against these culturally created images.

Most of my critics are victims of this very problem. They have not accepted the biblical Jesus. They have accepted a Jesus re-created in the image of a white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant Republican. There is a wide discrepancy between the Jesus of Scripture and the Jesus propagated in American culture. The American cultural deity promises success and only calls for us to tithe. But the Jesus of Scripture promises us the cross and calls us to give everything that we are and have.

What did you really want to accomplish in your book?

Most campus ministries have appealed to people who have either already heard the gospel and have drifted away from the church or have had some religious background but never really understood it. When I taught at the University of Pennsylvania, a lot of people were led into personal relationships with Christ because I developed a way of talking to them that met their questions, needs, and problems. It was very effective. I can point to people who are evangelical leaders today who were won to Christ at the University of Pennsylvania.

I honestly felt that the experiences and the manner of evangelizing in that context were something I should share. I thought that the book would speak to a lot of secular intellectuals that the church would never reach, and I have many letters that will verify that. I also hoped that it would help my Christian brothers and sisters to see new dimensions to the faith, and with those new dimensions to be more effective communicators of the gospel.

The way evangelical Christianity is doing theology really bothers me. If you do not live in a community where you can float an idea and be corrected in love, there is a sense that no one dare make a statement. If everybody has to say only things that they know are safely orthodox, if we lose the capacity to be open and to share ideas that people may consider heretical, I think we will lose our creativity.

On The Deity Of Christ:

You write, “Jesus was God because he was fully human.” Isn’t this confusing humanity and deity?

It might sound that way. But I was very careful to say earlier in the book that by human I meant a full expression of the image of God; that in a sense we lost the image of God when we sinned; and that as we come into a relationship with Christ, we begin to recover his likeness. In becoming human, we are becoming something that we have never been, because all of us lost our humanness in the Fall. Salvation is an opportunity to regain the humanness that enables us to be in the image of God and in the likeness of Christ.

Does Jesus’ Godness include more than his moral excellence? For example, in order to say that Jesus is God, we have to affirm that he is omniscient and omnipresent. Those are not qualities even of perfect humanity.

Here you come to the whole problem of the Incarnation. When Jesus emptied himself, as it says in Philippians, and took on the likeness of human flesh, did he have omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence? Did Jesus have instantaneous access to all knowledge, or did he in his humanity limit himself?

I think that you’re saying that Jesus really ceased, in the ultimate sense, to be God.

No, I didn’t say that. I think that Jesus’ Godness was in his infinite love, that in this infinite love he was willing to limit his power. He could call upon the heavenly Father, as he did at times, for all kinds of things. But the Jesus who revealed himself in history had to grow in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. He had to learn things. The fact that Jesus took on the limitations of our humanity does not mean that he in any way lost his divinity.

On The Mystical Presence Of Christ In People:

A lot of people want further clarification on what you have said about the mystical presence of Jesus in every person. You write: “I do not mean that others represent Jesus for us, I mean that Jesus actually is present in each other person.” Please explain that.

Every time I look at a human being I am encouraged to look through that human being into Christ. Christ is not that human being. But Christ comes at me through that human being so that every human encounter holds for me the possibility of an encounter with God. This is what Jesus is talking about when in the twenty-fifth chapter of Matthew he says, “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” Whenever I feed somebody, I see through that person to Christ, and hence I feed Christ as I feed that person.

This posture can deliver us from any arrogance that we might have in missionary service. If I pick a drunk up off the street, take him to my home, bathe him, and give him a place to sleep, I may think I’ve done something good, and I may take a condescending attitude toward him. But if I look through that person and see Jesus, then as I serve that person, I do so with awe and respect and the awareness that I may not even be worthy of this opportunity to serve.

Commenting on Matthew 25, you write that many who thought they knew Jesus will be turned away from God’s kingdom because they failed to sense his presence in hungry people. On the other hand, you say, the Lord will invite many who thought they had no relationship with him to enter his kingdom because when they loved hungry people, they were relating to him. Does salvation depend on how we relate to the Jesus that comes to us through others?

Salvation ultimately depends on relationships with Jesus—period. There is no salvation apart from a personal relationship with the resurrected Christ.

While I am an old-time fundamentalist, believing that one becomes a Christian through personally accepting Christ as Lord, Savior, and God, I am not about to say who is not going to heaven. The twenty-fifth chapter of Matthew says: Don’t be so sure that some people that you are ready to write off will not be there. There will be a lot of surprises on Judgment Day.

Don’t you get the impression that the New Testament does not call us to find God in this person or that person, but to find God in Christ?

I do. I think that the Bible does say, “Find God in Christ.” I was clear to say in my book that Christ, who is the essence of God, comes at us through other people. Where does one find Christ if not there?

There is the abstraction that God is mystically present everywhere. But he is uniquely present in human beings, and that’s what makes them so sacred. That’s what makes taking human life under any circumstance so tragic. Whatever I do to a human being, I do to God in a very special way.

How would you distinguish between what our Lord says in John 14 about the Holy Spirit being sent to indwell only believers, over against his universal indwelling of all humanity?

The difference is this: God is at work in every human being, as it says in Romans. Every human being is approached by God. But the nature of every human being is to be at war with the God who is struggling to love him or her. When one surrenders to God, the power of the Holy Spirit breaks loose in that individual as never before, and all the fruits of the Spirit become operative in that person’s life.

On Doctrine:

Are you a universalist?

No. I believe in a loving God who doesn’t want to send anybody to hell. But in the end, certain people will choose to be in hell rather than to bow before Jesus.

Do you think that a person who acts on the general light he has been given may be saved without knowing who Jesus of Nazareth was?

When I am sensitive to the way in which the church has twisted the descriptions of Jesus to serve political and economic purposes, then I believe that a lot of people may have encountered Jesus mystically, in miraculous ways. As a result, they may even be saved by him.

On Campolo’S Ministry:

Some of your critics have called you a heretic, but your friends have called you a prophet. What does that mean to you?

I do not consider myself a prophet. A prophet has a special message from God. I am a critic. But I make every statement with great trembling and fear, and I ask myself and the Lord repeatedly, “Am I being faithful to your Word? Am I being honest in all that I say?”

The word heretic is interesting. Here’s a guy who is out preaching the gospel and winning people to Jesus Christ. My Bible says, “By their fruits shall ye know them.” Do those who hear me preach claim that I do not preach Christ? Do the pastors across this country complain that when I finish with their kids they don’t love Jesus anymore? Is that what you’re hearing? I don’t think so.

Some of my ideas may be wrong. But I am not a heretic because I am wrong. In 1 John, the Bible states categorically what a heretic is: somebody who says Jesus is not the Christ, that Jesus is not God.

I know a lot of people don’t like the things I say about the war in Nicaragua. A lot of people are upset with what I say about the arms race. A lot of people don’t like what I say about lifestyle. I just wish that they had gone after me on those things.

Part III. A Man of Zeal and Contradiction

Senior Editor Kenneth S. Kantzer evaluates Tony Campolo’s teachings.

A theologian, Tony Campolo is not. But he is a sociologist and, most certainly, an evangelist. And as an evangelist, Tony claims to be a conservative evangelical if not a fundamentalist.

If evangelicalism is defined as those doctrines held in common and set forth as biblical faith by Luther, Calvin, Wesley, the Anglican Richard Hooker, and the Anabaptist Menno Simons, then Tony is an evangelical. He affirms the key Protestant doctrines unequivocally and emotionally.

The trouble is, he also makes statements, with equal forthrightness and emotion, that many interpret as flatly contradicting his commitments to evangelical orthodoxy. In addition, he takes positions on some issues that his evangelical friends find seriously disturbing even though they may not actually contradict basic evangelicalism.

In his affirmations of orthodoxy, Tony Campolo is second to none. He asserts the infallibility of the whole Bible, the special creation of a historical Adam and Eve, a historical Fall, and the reality of both heaven and hell. And he is not a universalist—not everyone will make it to heaven.

As for the person of Christ, Tony defends the Council of Chalcedon’s doctrine of two natures in one person: Jesus Christ, fully man and fully God. He strongly affirms the virgin birth, complete sinlessness, bodily resurrection, and literal second coming of Christ. The salvation of sinners is wholly by grace. The substitutionary atonement is an act of divine love in which the incarnate God paid the penalty for human sin. Salvation is offered to all and is received only on condition of personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior—not on condition of our good works.

Questions

What more can be asked of any Christian? Much more has been asked of Anthony Campolo since the publication of A Reasonable Faith (Word, 1983). Tony calls the book “a personal attempt to state my Christian faith in a way that might prove meaningful for my secularist friends.” But its meaning has not proved clear to many of his evangelical friends.

The book is not written in careful language. Intemperate statements abound, their most natural interpretations raising serious questions about Tony’s orthodoxy and his competence as a trusted thought leader.

For example, the book clearly asserts that Jesus is both God and man, but notes: “Humanness and Godness are one and the same.” A fair reading of the passage would seem to indicate that the “Godness” of Jesus’ consisted of his human moral excellence—a standard nineteenth-century liberal misunderstanding of Christ’s deity. He explained to CHRISTIANITY TODAY, however, that in the Incarnation Jesus gave up his divine attributes except for love, a doctrine of Christ that could well be characterized (as A. H. Strong did) as incarnation by divine suicide: In his incarnate life Jesus Christ ceased to possess essential attributes of deity.

Also according to A Reasonable Faith, Jesus Christ is mystically incarnate in every human being. This is not merely divine omnipresence, or human creation in the image of God, or every human being representing Jesus. Rather, Jesus is “waiting to be discovered in every person you and I encounter”—believers and unbelievers alike.

When a skeptical student inquires, “Where do I meet this resurrected Jesus?” Tony answers, “[He] is mysteriously present and waiting to be discovered in every person you … encounter.” Accordingly, sinners who are alienated from God become reconciled to him as they are reconciled to each other. “Ultimately, Jesus can be known only when the ‘I-Thou’ happens” between two people. Thus, Tony warns us, “there will be many surprises on Judgment Day. Many who thought they knew Jesus will be turned away because they failed to sense His presence in people who were hungry, naked or lonely.”

Forgiveness of sins and freedom from divine judgment are not absent from this volume, but the focus is entirely on the achievement of “humanness” or “Godness”—becoming like Christ.

Authority

Tony vigorously affirms that the Bible is inerrant, but he says all our interpretations of the Bible must be submitted to the authority of the church. While he accepts an evolutionary view of the origin of man and the universe (albeit not Darwin’s version), he holds that this is consistent with Scripture that teaches only the fact (not the method) of Creation.

Throughout his volume, Tony displays a distrust of theologians and theologizing. “Theologies come and theologies go,” he states, seeming to deny the possibility of a truly transcultural message. “At best a theology points people to Jesus. It is not the truth.”

Tony stresses the relativity of all human knowledge—including the relativity of all our interpretations of Scripture. However, he insists that this relativity does not extend to Scripture itself.

On still another front, Tony’s evangelistic emphasis falls less upon the individual sinner’s need for a right relationship to God than it does on the need for deliverance from life as a consumer. Tony has a deep distrust of laissez-faire capitalism, which exalts the profit motive and engenders selfish materialism. Tony is not a Marxist; he is committed to free enterprise and the private ownership of capital. However, says Tony, the profit motive must yield to the desire to meet others’ needs.

Most of what Tony says is not a defense of free enterprise but a warning against the overweening influence of economic factors in our sinful culture and a call for true disciples to share their wealth with the poor, for whom God has a special concern. “History,” he declares, “is a class struggle between the oppressed peoples of the world and their oppressors.”

In his appeal to the secular mind, Tony frequently downplays orthodox heroes like Luther, Calvin, and Wesley and draws his insights selectively from Karl Marx, Paul Tillich, Martin Buber, and Teilhard de Chardin. Often he finds that the secular world view has embedded within it “more faith than I find in most churchmen.”

Tony sticks to his goal of winning those with thoroughly secular minds, those who believe in Marx, Darwin, Nietzsche, Freud, and Heidegger. He tries to show them that at the deepest level their idols have assumed things that make sense only on the basis of the Christian gospel.

In principle, this evangelistic method can scarcely be faulted. The apostle Paul employed a similar method. But it has its dangers.

Ruckus

Tony’s explanation of the ruckus that has risen over his book is simple: His opponents do not like his stern biblical preaching against the American way of life and his insistence on the cost of true discipleship. (Many do object to what they see as his superficial solution to the plight of the poor and an indiscriminate borrowing from popular left-wing social and economic theory.) He believes his critics’ objections to his theology camouflage their real objections to his biblical ethics. Tony feels persecuted for righteousness’ sake. But it would be unfortunate if, because of this, Tony failed to hear the criticisms offered by his friends.

Many of the objectionable statements are sufficiently ambiguous so that Tony can harmonize them with evangelical teaching. Ambiguity may be acceptable when he speaks in the Bier Keller of the University of Wisconsin. But when he publishes a book, he owes his readers sufficient clarity so that they can see he is not denying evangelical teaching.

Unfortunately, other statements scarcely lend themselves to easy clarification. For example, his statement that Christ is to be found only through a deep relationship between two people—believers or unbelievers—is not easily translated into standard evangelical thought forms.

Polarization

Evangelicals today are in danger of tearing themselves apart at a time when they desperately need to consolidate their opposition against an increasingly powerful secularism. We need new patterns for preaching the gospel to meet the minds of a generation that cannot swallow sugar-coated optimistic liberalism and yet is threatened by the despair that comes from unbelief. Therefore, Tony’s opponents must tolerate differences in social ethics. We may not like what Tony says on these matters, but we don’t dare call it unorthodox. Some evangelicals who very much need to face up to their own selfish lifestyle may feel justified in shrugging off all that he says because it seems to stem from faulty theology.

In addition, Tony’s opponents must not label him a heretic—especially when, as an evangelist, he addresses his message to those who are prejudiced against traditional Christianity. He can scarcely be faulted for employing their vocabulary or their ideas. After all, Augustine borrowed effectively from Plato, Aristotle, the Neo-Platonists, and the Stoics to form an apologetic that has lasted for a millennium and a half.

Yet Tony must remember that this is not just a question of fellowship in Christ. He is a leader and teacher of youth, preparing men and women as ministers for the next generation. Tony needs to shore up his evangelistic language and his doctrinal statements on key points—particularly the deity of Christ and how we are to know him. Both sound doctrine and zeal are biblical requirements for those who teach.

Gordon College Rules that Catholics Cannot Sign Its Faculty Statement of Faith

The faculty senate at Gordon College has determined that Roman Catholic doctrine is incompatible with the college’s faculty statement of faith.

The faculty senate’s examination of Catholic doctrine was launched several months ago after popular literature professor Thomas Howard informed the college of his intention to become a Catholic. One function of the faculty senate is to review current and prospective faculty members.

Howard resigned from the Wenham, Massachusetts, college in April when he converted to Catholicism (CT, May 17, 1985, p. 46). He said his resignation was in the interests of “harmony, integrity, and tranquillity” at Gordon College. The college’s faculty senate researched the issue, met with Howard on two occasions, and evaluated written and oral comments from faculty members before issuing its 15-page report.

The report affirms that “Catholics and Protestants hold much in common within the historic Christian tradition.” However, the report concludes that despite increased dialogue between Catholics and Protestants, and despite the “most generous definition of the sometimes popularly used term ‘evangelical Roman Catholic,’ … serious doctrinal differences [remain] … between the two confessing communities.”

The confessional statement that Gordon College faculty members are required to sign is “unmistakably Protestant and Reformational in character,” the faculty senate decided. Specifically, the senate cited the statement’s assertion that the Bible is “the only infallible guide in faith and practice.” The report deems this tenet to be inconsistent with the “Catholic emphasis on the authority and teachings of the Church.”

In addition, the report states that the Protestant emphasis on salvation by faith alone cannot be reconciled with “traditional Catholic teaching on cooperative grace and sacerdotal-sacramentalism”—saving grace mediated through the sacraments.

Howard had taught at Gordon College for 15 years. During the 1985–86 academic year, he will teach literature at two Catholic seminaries in Boston, Saint John’s and Our Lady of Grace.

He said the faculty senate at points was correct in articulating the differences between Protestantism and Catholicism. He said it is true that the sole authority of Scripture is a principle unique to Protestantism, and that he, as a Catholic, could not subscribe to it. However, he said much of the report’s criticism of Catholic doctrine resulted from a misunderstanding of Catholicism.

The Local Church Wins an $11.9 Million Judgement in a Libel Suit

A California judge has issued an $11.9 million judgment against the author and the publisher of a book that calls into question some of the beliefs and practices of an organization known as the local church. Headed by a Chinese immigrant named Witness Lee, the local church also had named the cult-watching organization Spiritual Counterfeits Project (SCP) in the libel suit.

In March, SCP filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Federal Bankruptcy Code (CT, April 5, 1985, p. 41). By filing for Chapter 11 status, SCP assumed liability for the libel claim against it. The cult-watching organization will pay about $30,000 to Lee and the local church. That figure represents the approximate value of SCP’s assets if it were to cease operating.

The libel suit centered on a controversial German-language book, titled The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee and the Local Church. The book was written by Neil Duddy while he was an SCP researcher. It was published by Schwengeler-Verlag, a Swiss company. Both Duddy and his publisher were named as codefendants in the libel suit. Neither made an attempt at legal defense during the trial.

Alameda County (Calif.) Superior Court Judge Leon Seyranian ruled that the book was “in all major respects false, defamatory and unprivileged, and, therefore, libelous.”

The local church will likely collect little, if any, of the $11.9 million judgment. Duddy, who lives in Denmark, and the book’s Swiss-based publisher are beyond the court’s jurisdiction.

SCP continues to uphold the book’s essential accuracy. “We still believe the book is not libelous and that we could have proved it in court if we had the money …,” said SCP spokesman Bill Squires. “The judge did not hear all the facts.”

In his judgment, Seyranian wrote that “although the trial was uncontested, … the plaintiffs have presented competent and reliable evidence, and the Court was very impressed with the stature and quality of the witnesses presented.”

Among the expert witnesses brought in by the local church were J. Gordon Melton, director of the Institute for the Study of American Religion, and H. Newton Malony, psychology professor at Fuller Theological Seminary. Malony said he conducted a rigorous study of the local church and concluded that it is “simply another expression of Christianity on the American scene.”

Squires noted that Malony’s study was done fairly recently, whereas SCP’s was done a decade or so ago. “Movements change,” Squires said.

Local church spokesman Dan Towle said the organization has been misunderstood. He said the effect of an initial bad report snowballed. “It’s hard to put a rebuttal in a Christian bookstore,” he said, “once you’ve been labeled one of the seven worst cults in America.”

The only definite outcome is that even after a grueling libel trial, the controversy over Duddy’s book remains unresolved.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.